Residents vote against nuclear waste dump near Hawker in South Australia
|
Residents vote against nuclear waste dump near Hawker in South Australia
Green groups say 52% vote against federal government facility should rule out region as potential site, Guardian, Australian Associated Press, Thu 12 Dec 2019 Residents in South Australia’s Flinders Ranges have voted narrowly against having a nuclear waste dump in their region.About 52% of the people who took part in the ballot voted against the federal government’s facility being established on land near Hawker. The result came after a similar poll of residents on SA’s Eyre Peninsula voted almost 62% in favour of the dump being built on one of two sites near Kimba. The federal government is yet to respond to the poll, but environmental groups said it should rule out the Flinders Ranges as a potential dump site. Australian Conservation Foundation campaigner Dave Sweeney said the result came amid clear opposition from regional pastoralists and the area’s native title holders. “There is no broad community support for a national radioactive waste facility in the Flinders Ranges,” Sweeney said. The Friends of the Earth said it was time for the federal government to abandon the dump plan altogether. “The government has previously stated that 65% would be a figure that would indicate the broad community support they need to select a site,” spokeswoman Mara Bonacci said. “These ballot results show that the minister does not have that support.”…… The community ballots are not binding on the government, which has promised to provide financial incentives to the community around the selected site. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/dec/12/residents-vote-against-nuclear-waste-dump-near-hawker-in-south-australia |
|
|
Kimba now the likely site for nuclear waste dump
Resources Minister Matt Canavan says after a ballot of local residents voted narrowly against hosting the facility, the site near Hawker is no longer an option.
More than 860 people cast a ballot in the poll with 454, or just under 53 per cent, voting against establishing the dump on Wallerberdina Station.
“This ballot does not demonstrate a sufficient level of support and I will no longer consider this site an option for the facility,” Canavan said in a statement on Friday.
A similar poll conducted on Eyre Peninsula recently returned a 62 per cent vote in favour of the idea, with two sites near Kimba in the running.
Australian Conservation Foundation campaigner Dave Sweeney said the Hawker result also came amid clear opposition from regional pastoralists and the area’s native title holders………https://indaily.com.au/news/2019/12/13/kimba-firms-as-nuclear-dump-site-after-hawker-vote/
NUCLEAR WASTE DUMP DECEPTION
|
Kim Mavromatis No Nuclear Waste Dump Anywhere in South Australia, 11 Dec 19, The whole of SA should wake up to what ANSTO and the Fed govnt is proposing. ANSTO and the Fed govnt are not being honest about what they are going to dump at the proposed sites near Kimba or in the Flinders Ranges near Hawker. ANSTO state that spent nuclear fuel from the Lucas Heights reactor is Intermediate Level Nuclear Waste – but it’s really High Level Nuclear Waste. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Definition of High Level Nuclear Waste : “High-Level Radioactive Waste (HLW) is produced from the burning of uranium fuel in nuclear power reactors. It is of two kinds: spent fuel, declared as waste and ready for disposal, or waste resulting from the reprocessing of spent fuel. Due to its high radioactivity and very long half-life, HLW has to be well contained and isolated from the human environment.” Even after 30 years, spent nuclear fuel from nuclear reactors is still 10,000 times more radioactive than uranium ore. And the waste that is shipped back to Australia from France from the reprocessed spent nuclear fuel still contains 95% of the radioactivity. As well as low-level waste, ANSTO are proposing to temporarily dump High Level Nuclear Waste in SA (deceptively classifed as Intermediate) for up to 100 years until a permanent solution can be found. If a nuclear waste accident occurs, it’s likely to be catastrophic for the region and South Australia. The Spencer Gulf is connected to aquifers from the Flinders Ranges and floodwaters from significant flooding events at the proposed site end up in the Spencer Gulf via Lake Torrens. Why on earth would ScoMo’s Federal Liberal govnt want to dump nuclear waste in the Flinders Ranges, on a floodplain, in a seismically active region, bordered by natural springs, in an iconic tourism destination, or on Eyre Peninsula farmland, near Kimba and next to Lake Gilles Conservation Park????? The govnt have stated that there’s never been a nuclear material transport accident in Aust – but there has been, and the people affected were treated badly and many died of cancers – watch our film : “NUCLEAR WASTE CRASH COVERUP – POISONED POLICE SPEAK OUT” https://vimeo.com/372781616 |
|
Strong opposition to nuclear waste dump plan for Flinders Ranges
South Australia’s nuclear dump deadline looms large, Newcastle Herald, Amy Green, 11 Dec 19
South Australia’s Flinders Ranges nuclear waste ballot closes tomorrow.
Thousands of people have signed an open letter to the federal government asking it not to proceed with the current plan. The Australian Conservation Foundation is behind the letter, which has garnered more than 5000 signatures, addressing Minister for Resources Senator Matt Canavan.
Nuclear Free Campaigner Dave Sweeney has labelled the process “deeply flawed and irresponsible”. “The current federal waste plan lacks key information of such important things as waste acceptance criteria, who would manage any facility and transport methods and routes,” Mr Sweeney said.
“It also fails to make any credible case for doubling handling the long lived intermediate level waste (ILW). “The vast majority of this ILW waste is currently securely stored above ground at the ANSTO Lucas Heights facility in southern Sydney, but the federal Department want to re-locate this above ground storage in regional SA – pending future disposal via a yet to fund or identified place or process.
“There is a real risk this waste will become stranded at any future SA site.”
The Department of Industry, Innovation and Science is encouraging interested people who haven’t done so already, to have their say on the proposed National Radioactive Waste Management Facility.
The department is consulting with two South Australian communities who live near three potential sites volunteered by landowners – two near Kimba and one near Hawker.
The results of these ballots and surveys, together with public submissions and feedback received elsewhere will be given to Minister Canavan to assist him in deciding whether the facility can be established at one of the potential sites…. https://www.newcastleherald.com.au/story/6538918/sa-nuclear-dump-deadline-looms-large/?cs=9397
Community of small rural town Kimba “blown apart” by nuclear waste dump plan
The Australian town divided over hosting the country’s first nuclear waste dump, The small South Australian farming town of Kimba is split in two by the proposal to host Australia’s first permanent nuclear waste facility. Here, SBS News meets residents on both sides of the debate.
The women, who both live with their families on farms, have come to the decision that it is time to move on.
“It used to be such a close-knit community, but it’s blown apart.”
Ms Miller says the debate over the proposal for Kimba to host Australia’s first permanent nuclear waste facility has led to so much community division that some people no longer talk to each other.
“It’s not a nice place to live, you don’t want to go down the street because there are people that shun you and won’t talk to you,” Ms Miller says.
“The whole atmosphere is just really depressing”.
For four years, this small town on the edge of the Australian outback has been at the centre of debate, consultation and planning as a potential site to host the facility.
After promises of 45 ongoing full-time jobs and more than $30 million in federal government money earmarked to flow into town projects if the proposal goes ahead, the community last month voted on whether or not to host the site.
Sixty-two per cent of Kimba residents backed the site going ahead in the ballot run by the Australian Electoral Commission, and 38 per cent voted against it.
The public vote was a key final hurdle to indicate community support for the plan and federal resources minister Matt Canavan is expected to make a decision on which site will host the dump in early 2020.
There are three sites that remain on the shortlist, two near Kimba and the other further north near Hawker, in South Australia’s Flinders Ranges region.
Support for the facility
Grain and livestock farmer Geoff Baldock is a third-generation farmer in the Kimba region. He and his family farm more than 700 hectares of land here and he is preparing to sell off a small slice of that, around two per cent, to the federal government for them to build their nuclear waste facility.
He won’t reveal exactly how much the government is offering to pay for his land but says the offer has been “generous”…..
He hopes the proposal will go ahead and play a vital role in securing the future of the Kimba town, which has been in economic and population decline for a number of years. ……
Opponents of the proposal are deeply distrustful of the federal government and the promises made by politicians and scientists on government-paid salaries. They want independent scientists brought in to the safety assessments of the site. ……
The public vote in the town of Hawker closes on December 12 and the government will make a decision on which site will go ahead with the plan early next year.
But for friends Ms Tiller and Ms Miller it is too late. Their properties are on the market and both families are planning to move elsewhere in South Australia as soon as they can. HTTPS://WWW.SBS.COM.AU/NEWS/THE-AUSTRALIAN-TOWN-DIVIDED-OVER-HOSTING-THE-COUNTRY-S-FIRST-NUCLEAR-WASTE-DUMP?CX_CID=EDM%3ANEWSAM%3A2019&FBCLID=IWAR2B19ZUOG9WHGBO9CVSO_81AOYNXY0R4AFZAJFJW4EJWKMW_N6_B2M01WQ
Victoria’s chemical waste scandal
 The man who made a toxic waste disaster, Greed, lax oversight and poor regulation allowed one man to distort the national market for toxic waste disposal and create an environmental catastrophe.The Age, By Chris Vedelago, Sumeyya Ilanbey and Cameron Houston, DECEMBER 8, 2019 August 2012, former truck driver and sandblaster Graham Leslie White bought a 567-hectare block of useless scrubland outside the tiny western Victorian town of Kaniva, nearly five hours from his home and businesses in Melbourne.He began by building a road, designed to support the weight of heavy vehicles, into the desolate patch. Later, White bulldozed a network of tracks deep into the interior of the property that dead-ended in oddly shaped clearings of rough, red earth.
White claimed it was a quad-biking course for his children, an answer that satisfied the curiosity of the council officer. But five years on, we know the truth. Covered by a thin layer of topsoil were the pits that White had dug and that he was filling with toxic waste — millions of litres of chemicals and tonnes of asbestos-contaminated products brought by the truckload. The Kaniva property was the final destination for an illegal dumping syndicate whose operations grew so large they distorted the national market in toxic waste disposal. Victoria’s Environment Protection Authority — relying on a paper-based tracking system and a lax inspection regime — was blindsided by this dark market that threatened public safety and the welfare of emergency services personnel. By the time the scheme was accidentally exposed in 2018, White and his associates at Bradbury Industrial Services had illicitly buried or stockpiled an estimated 50 million litres of highly flammable solvents and other toxic materials. The failure to arrest this operation also laid the groundwork that sparked two of Melbourne’s worst-ever industrial fires. The value propositionSome time after 2013, White made an informal arrangement with waste recycling and remediation company, Bradbury. Their pitch to the producers and owners of toxic waste was simple — we can do it cheaper. Industry sources who declined to be identified for fear of retribution by their employers say the waste industry operates on thin margins. The syndicate offered to dispose of products at up to half the cost of competitors. Sometimes they offered to transport chemicals from the factory door for free. An investigation by The Age has revealed that manufacturers, chemical companies, waste processors, and paint, automotive and cleaning businesses across the eastern states quickly signed up. …… https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/the-man-who-made-a-toxic-waste-disaster-20191205-p53h1x.html |
|
Money, Money, Money, or perhaps not. Plan to dump nuclear waste in the Flinders Ranges –
|
Kazzi Jai Fight To Stop Nuclear Waste Dump In Flinders Ranges , 9 Dec 19
 MONEY MONEY MONEY…..Part 1 of a 2 part post…
Not that I am interested in the Money side of this poorly thought out Dump proposal at all, but this has been sent to me by a reliable source to post…Will follow up with further information regarding the MONEY side of this proposal in a Part 2 post tomorrow. “I checked to see if the National Radioactive Waste Management Act has been amended and it has not altered. This act has to be amended by Parliament, not the BCC (or KCC) and will not be amended before we get a chance to vote. (if it is not stopped before hand). I have also tried to find information regarding the promise of the $20m but have not come across any documentation to date. Just to make things a bit more complicated, the Community Development Fund which was $10m but now promised to be $20m, will come from the National Repository Capital Contribution Fund. Credits to this fund will be money appropriated by the Parliament for the purpose of the fund, and amounts in excess of the first $10m received from fees charge to use the dump.
This fund will be established immediately after the dump is issued with an operating licence which could be 6 years away. However, a Commonwealth entity or an authority of, plus the state government will be exempt from paying dump fees and taking into consideration that approx 96% of the waste will be from this source, the dump is not going to be a big money making venture. (unless the Government allows overseas customers to use it and pay the dump fees). So this puts the promised $20m on shaky ground especially if there is a change of government in the meantime.
The following is copied from section 34E of the Act and details how money from the fund will be administered. It does not mention any thing about a local development board or council having a say into how the money will be spent in our backyard. All we will have is a dump in our back yard.”
Section 34E Conditions attaching to the initial use of facility (1) A radioactive waste management facility established on a site selected under this Act must not commence accepting any radioactive waste for storage, management or any other purpose, unless: (a) the requirements specified in subsection (2) of this section have been met; and (b) the Minister has given to the person managing the facility a notice certifying that each of those requirements has been met.
(2) The requirements to be met for the purposes of subsection (1) are: (a) that the Fund stands in credit to the value of at least $10,000,000; and (b) either: (i) the Commonwealth has entered into an agreement with the relevant State or Territory for the administration of the Fund, which provides that the Fund be administered by the Minister, on the advice of a committee chaired by the Premier or Chief Minister of the relevant State or Territory and comprising 3 other persons resident in that State or Territory with expertise in education, infrastructure and health respectively; or (ii) failing such agreement—the Commonwealth has established a committee comprising 3 persons with expertise in education, infrastructure and health resident in the relevant State or Territory, whose function is to advise the Minister on the administration of the Fund by the Minister. https://www.facebook.com/groups/941313402573199/
|
|
Shonky opinion poll results to give the go-ahead for Kimba nuclear waste dump?
An ill-advised plan to boost a small rural town’s economy is likely to do the very opposite.
But anyway, should the purpose of a national nuclear waste dump be primarily to improve the economics of a small rural town?
Kazzi Jai Fight To Stop Nuclear Waste In The Flinders Ranges, 30 Nov 19
Letter to the Editor:
The recent result of the vote for hosting a National Radioactive Waste Management Facility was positive for the Kimba community, with a significant increase in a number of people welcoming the facility.
Going according to figures taken from previous surveys , the NO vote only lost 12 votes. Would not call that a significant increase!
The 90 per cent engagement in the vote is a great indication of how much the people of our community care about its future.
The engagement was centred on “objective criteria”…whatever that was chosen to mean – it’s all secret, despite being told that this is meant to be an “open and transparent” process!
Small communities including Kimba are finding it more and more difficult to sustain their volunteer rates, fill sporting teams each week, and individuals are having to travel for FIFO (fly-in fly-out) work to be able to provide for their families.
All small communities have feast and famine times.
After three main businesses have closed in the past 18 months, we have to act now.
And they closed why? Probably because of the threat of a proposed nuclear waste dump happening there! You are already becoming orchestrators of your own demise!
But you haven’t actually looked that far have you?
The proposed facility is also set to increase the economy across the Eyre Peninsula and greater South Australia during the construction phase.
Where are the figures for this bit of fiction? Increase the economy? More like damage our economy forever! If it really was such a golden opportunity, then there are plenty of sites actually in NSW which would be suitable! Even agricultural ones! Why are they not demanding that they be considered instead!…..
Oh wait! There was… at Sallys Flat NSW which was also deemed suitable by the Federal Government as one of the SIX proposed sites around Australia. Why was this site not hounded like the South Australian ones were! Only 260kms from Lucas Heights….and not 1500+kms like the ones in South Australia! Even Oman Ama in Qld, also deemed suitable by the Federal Government, is only 780kms from Lucas Heights.
No one is DEMANDING to be considered for this “WONDERFUL” opportunity….why do you think that is?
We believe in the capacity of our community and its people, we have four years of facts that prove to us the proposed facility, transport and storage will be monitored and safe and we will keep positively working towards a sustainable future, for the wage earners, the farmers, the children, the home owners, the aged and more.
You have had four years of slow burn HALF TRUTHS and not FULL FACTS. They can promise you the world…..but the REALITY is something VERY DIFFERENT!
Are you really prepared to willingly contaminate your land. To undertake EVERY DAY the thought that today may be the day that the shielding and containment FAIL. That you will be left alone and abandoned as the Federal Government have achieved what THEY wanted to achieve – more political votes and NOT dealing with the waste PROPERLY in the first place, but rehashing the SAME plan which was drawn up in 1980…..which is FORTY YEARS AGO!
You may THINK you are SPECIAL now…..but you are simply A MEANS TO AN END!
And you are deliberately exposing your children and your land which you currently take for granted, to a poison which will remain dangerous for hundreds if not thousands of years!
When has any NORMAL person actually TRUSTED a Government with its promises? You are either naïve…..or very foolish!
We are told on a regular basis from others across the Eyre Peninsula and SA how awesome it would be for Kimba and the region, so let’s hear the voices of the positive people and I encourage all to write to the minister and department at radioactivewaste@industry.gov.au or call 13 28 46.
No you are not! You just choose to hear what you want to hear! That is TOTALLY DIFFERENT! And when it all goes pear-shaped, which is not a matter of IF but WHEN, then you will be one of the first to leave and head for another state! People who spruik for this dump are often the ones with the least to lose!
There is no way a sensible person would support having nuclear waste in agricultural land, nor in the iconic Flinders Ranges! It is sheer lunacy!
MATT & MEAGAN LIENERT
KimbaFighting for the future of our next generations who will have to deal with the liability and problems from people like you who have chosen EASY money (a once off payment mind you!) over the interests not only of Kimba and Hawker, but the rest of South Australia, since both proposed sites are not isolated islands in all of this!
South Australia is NOT Lucas Height’s nor the rest of the Nation’s Nuclear Dumping Ground!
Each state should deal with its own waste!
NO MEANS NO!
Australia to get high level nuclear wastes from UK, in return for Lucas Heights nuclear waste sent to UK
Kazzi Jai No Nuclear Waste Dump Anywhere in South Australia, 1 Dec 19,
We then have a Joint Committee report in 2017 which you can find on the ARPANSA website which states ”As stated in the 2014 report, ANSTO and the UK Nuclear Decommissioning Authority enacted a substitution agreement in 2013, under which ANSTO gave up title to the reprocessed residues from the reprocessing of 114 SFEs at Dounreay.
Instead, ANSTO agreed to take a radioactive equivalent to the Dounreay waste in the form of four canisters of CSD-V vitrified material currently held at Sellafield. Planning for the return of this material is underway. An agreement for the supply of a second TN-81 container has been enacted with AREVA TNI, and negotiations for the eventual removal from storage and transportation of the canisters are underway with the UK. It is anticipated that the shipment to Australia will occur in or after late 2020,resulting in the full disposition of spent fuel from the HIFAR reactor.”
Soooooo….The next question is….these canisters are CSD-V……
According to La Hague in France…..
”A high level glass-ceramic for the vitrification of legacy, highly-corrosive UMo fission products (from recycled GCR fuel). These are known as CSD-U canisters.
A high level borosilicate glass for the vitrification of UOX fission products (fission product solutions derived from the processing of LWR fuel), with a high throughput (the capacity of the vitrification line is doubled by retrofitting a CCIM). These are known as CSD-V canisters.”
So….what are we getting back from Sellafield again….you have it ….CSD-V!!
And…..From an Assessment Report tabled by ANSTO for Interim Waste Store Safety Assessment 2014… ”The analysis is bounded by the thermal power of the CSD-V (i.e. vitrified waste from HLW) which generates about 3.7 times more heat than CSD-U.”
Just as well the TN-81 casks have cooling fins!!
“Intermediate Level” nuclear wastes for South Australian are really “High Level”
Barb Walker shared a post. Fight To Stop Nuclear Waste In The Flinders Ranges. Relaying important information at the request of Dr. Susi Andersson
Intermediate level radioactive waste (ILW) is not the gloves, masks and gowns mentioned by Alan Moskwa (Nuclear Safety (26/11/19). Australia’s intermediate level waste (ILW) includes the spent fuel elements of the HIFAR (Australia’s first) reactor, which are classified as high level waste in many other countries. In ANSTO’s words, 98% of their ILW is waste specific to the post reactor processing of uranium targets to produce Mo-99 and other radiopharmaceuticals.
Dr. S Andersson https://www.facebook.com/groups/941313402573199/
All Australians can vote – no nuclear waste dump in the Flinders Ranges. *
Cindi Drennan, No Nuclear Waste Dump Anywhere in South Australia. November 21
Dear Australia, I am voting on behalf of you all, no waste dump in the Flinders Ranges. *
Having researched as much as I can, I can’t agree to a nuclear waste dump that on all evidence is a badly planned political project that hasn’t even defined a suitable site or method of transport. I wish to pay respects to the wishes of the adnyamathanha and first nation elders who have said no, to the geologists who have said no, and the tourism and pastoral businesses who have said no. I appreciate so many would love to see new industry in the Flinders Ranges and I too am in agreement that sustainable developments will be fantastic, but we must be sure new industry is fully fleshed out, supports renewables and sustainability, and planned and implemented ethically. I don’t feel confident in the process or the proposed product being done well, nor confident it can be ethically managed for generations into the future.
One last thing: huge appreciation to FRC council and community members on both sides of the fence for your months and years of work dealing with this matter in such professional ways. I’m saddened by the impact on the region, of a “debate” that was not invited and you all amaze me with your generous time and efforts to keep this a peaceful argument over a hot issue. Much respect.
*As an eligible voter in this ballot, it greatly upsets me that it is put to a tiny community and region of less than 2000 people to make a decision for all of Australia. It is unethical – especially considering nuclear waste is against the law in SA! If you do not live in this region and you wish to make your voice heard, please : have your say by contacting the federal government or the state minister for mining and energy… details are here. https://www.foe.org.au/have_your_say
ANSTO’s reply on nuclear crash report – that reply debunked
Kim Mavromatis No Nuclear Waste Dump Anywhere in South Australia, Nov 19, MY REPLY TO ANSTO’s DENIAL : FROM OFFICIAL POLICE RECORDS / REPORTS / FACTS / QUESTIONSANSTO Claim : “The accident in the 1980s did not involve material or vehicles associated with ANSTO’s predecessor, the Australian Atomic Energy Commission (AAEC), nor did it originate from Lucas Heights”.
The following is my reply to ANSTO’s denial in relation to the 1980 fatal accident on the Pacific Highway involving highly radioactive Americium 241 and Cesium 137 (and 2012 incident involving road workers at the accident site) featured in our documentary :
“Nuclear Waste Crash COVERUP – Poisoned Police Speak Out”.
At the accident site, a ruptured drum labelled ‘Americium 241’ was lying on the road and a broken open canister of ‘Cesium 137’ was on the side of the road (both photographed).
So where did the Americium 241 and Cesium 137 come from? Americium 241 is a radioactive decay element of Plutonium created from nuclear weapons and nuclear reactors (in high-level nuclear waste / spent nuclear fuel). The Lucas Heights nuclear reactor is the only place in Australia capable of creating Americium 241 from Plutonium (other than British Nuclear testing at Maralinga). At the time it was operated by Australian Atomic Energy Commission (AAEC now ANSTO).
The truck driver involved in the accident stated the radioactive materials came from Lucas Heights.
The Americium drum was labelled as the property of and destined to “Gulf Nuclear, Texas”.
Police officers Deards and Clifton attended the accident. Instructions were given by AAEC at Lucas Heights to move the Americium drum off the road into a cool place because it was a hot December day and if the paraffin wax around the inner lead container melted, radioactive materials could escape. How did AAEC know the makeup of the contents of the drum if they didn’t load it?
After the policemen did as instructed and moved the drum (photographed), the AAEC representative arrived at the scene and reported that the drum of Americium 241 was safe, even though police officers Deards and Clifton clearly saw the drum was ruptured and material was oozing out of it. The police officers experienced a strong acid like smell coming from the drum which affected their mouths, noses and eyes. Radioactive poisoning can occur by inhaling radioactive particles. A geiger counter reading at the scene was not taken by the AAEC representative.
The truck driver stated he was en route to Brisbane wharf and was instructed to cover the load so no one could see radioactive material being illegally transported through Brisbane streets.
After the accident, police officers Deards and Clifton suffered major health issues, lost their jobs, were cast aside and abandoned, and received threats to shut up or else.
In the following years many of the people who attended the accident and buried the tonnes of toxic chemicals on the side of the road, died prematurely from cancers.
THERE ARE MANY MORE QUESTIONS
If a nuclear waste accident occurred today, how would the affected community be treated by the govnt?
Why were police officers Deards and Clifton threatened and their official accounts disregarded?
Why was this highly radioactive material being shipped to Gulf Nuclear, Texas?
How many radioactive consignments like this were made over the years? Were they legal?
What was Gulf Nuclear (20 years in operation) doing with it ?
How was the Americium 241 extracted from Plutonium? https://www.facebook.com/groups/1314655315214929/
Kim Mavromatis is an Award-Winning documentary filmmaker. mav@mavmedia.com.au
Nuclear Waste Crash COVERUP – Poisoned Police Speak Out
Nuclear Waste Crash COVERUP – Poisoned Police Speak Out Kim Mavromatis No Nuclear Waste Dump Anywhere in South Australia https://vimeo.com/372781616?fbclid=IwAR0im5Vuz_UbrDAklOuNImdf1RRDuN7Z9pnLDOVO_84JaM9qa6IaVUuNn50
2 policemen, cast aside and abandoned, speak out about the poisoning, trauma and nightmares they faced, after attending a fatal road accident on the Pacific Highway involving nuclear waste from Lucas Heights.
Nuclear Waste from Lucas Heights in NSW that was heading to Brisbane wharf along the Pacific Highway to be shipped to Gulf Nuclear in Texas.
WAKE UP CALL
A wake up call for all South Australians as the federal govnt propose to dump nuclear waste in SA.
THREATS AND COVERUPS
“Shut your mouth, don’t talk to the media, or you’ll get a bullet in the back of your head”.
“It was a cover up from day one”.
“It was disgusting the way we were treated. Really was”.
NUCLEAR WASTE TRANSPORT ACCIDENTS
“The more they transport, the greater the risk”. “It will happen again, one day, somewhere – It will happen”.
SPECIAL THANKS to Bob and Terry for sharing their story.
THERE ARE MANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS CONSIGNMENT?
Why were Bob and Terry (policemen) treated sooo badly, threatened and told to shut up about the accident?
Why was Aust Atomic Energy Commission (AAEC now ANSTO) at Lucas Heights shipping this
highly radioactive material to Gulf Nuclear in Texas?
How many consignments like this were made over the years?
Was it legal?
What was Gulf Nuclear (20 years in operation) doing with it ?
How did AAEC (now ANSTO, Lucas Heights) create Americium 241 and Cesium 137 – did they have authority to do so?https://www.facebook.com/groups/1314655315214929/
A tiny percentage of South Australian people coerced into the decision on nuclear waste dump
This is a decision which will affect all South Australians, not just a tiny percentage of people who have experienced four years of federal government promises and pressure to acquiesce.
the Minister failed to mention the main component of the project — long lived intermediate level waste from the Lucas Heights reactor
Farmers and Traditional Owners decry SA nuclear more https://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article/farmers-and-traditional-owners-decry-sa-nuclear-vote, Michele Madigan,20 November 2019
-
- On 12 November, Senator Canavan, federal Minister for Resources, took a question from the rather more junior Senator Alex Antic. The questioner wondered whether there was any recent progress on the federal nuclear facility proposed for Antic’s own state of South Australia.
Union spokespeople are under no illusion that accidents are inevitable and about who will be automatically called for the cleanup. As Jamie Newlyn, South Australian Branch Secretary of the Maritime Union of Australia, warns: ‘MUA members work in critical points of the logistics cycle and therefore the safe handling and above ground storage for decades is of great concern to the MUA … ‘
A day of high temperatures and strong winds last month did nothing to deter opponents of the federal government’s nuclear plans from the latest Port Augusta Rally. Terry Schmucker, who owns a farm in nearby Poochera, had no vote in the recent poll. He was scathing about the inability of the nuclear industry to guarantee project safety when ANSTO has been unable to prevent radioactive leaks even on site.
After the rally, Aboriginal Co-Chairs of the Australian Nuclear Free Alliance (ANFA), Dwayne Coulthard and Vicki Abdulla, led a strong contingent to present ANFA’s petition to the office of South Australia’s Minister for Energy and Mining, Dan van Holst Pellekaan: ‘South Australia has legislation that makes such waste facilities illegal: The Nuclear Waste Storage (Prohibition) Act 2000 … We ask you to act now and protect South Australia and its people from Minister Canavan’s site selection process that has caused so much distress to South Australian communities … ‘
No, Senator Canavan, South Australians don’t believe that 452 people in one small town have the right to agree to burden us with all the nation’s nuclear waste — and forever.
In fact the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation has just set another challenge. With the results of their own Australian Electoral Company internal members vote showing 83 No and zero Yes votes, the Barngala have issued a statement which reads in part: ‘BDAC has written to Minister Canavan advising him of the result. BDAC has requested that given the first people for the area unanimously have voted against the proposed facility that the Minister should immediately determine that there is not broad community support for the project. ‘
With the arrival of the voting papers for the proposed alternative Flinders Ranges site on 14 November, the intensity of the division between potential yes and no voters in the small towns and hinterlands of Hawker and Quorn seems to have hit fever pitch. The potential yes voters welcoming of a new ‘industry’ to the area seem to disregard the effect a nuclear facility will have on the major tourism industry and Adnyamathanha heritage; not to mention the threats to groundwaters in an area subject to seismic activity and floods.
This is a decision which will affect all South Australians, not just a tiny percentage of people who have experienced four years of federal government promises and pressure to acquiesce.
Determined Aboriginal opposition to plan for Federal Nuclear Waste dump in rural South Australia
National waste dump: Aboriginal groups share support as ballot closure approaches, https://www.transcontinental.com.au/story/6504879/national-waste-dump-aboriginal-groups-share-support-as-ballot-closure-approaches/?fbclid=IwAR04J6eadTBu0gBqaT8IBVIo6jvv3wTo0hjnEbTqvbhRDJg6jOPdravwG2w, Amy Green, 21 Nov 19,
The fate of two outback communities at the centre of the federal government’s nuclear waste management facility could be determined before the end of the year.
A three year consultation clouded in controversy will come to a close on December 12 with the completion of a community vote in Hawker.
General Manager of the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility Taskforce Sam Chard said the government has been working to ‘hear the views of all interested parties including local residents, neighbours, business owners, Traditional Owners and the broader community’.
The Wallerberdina Station site has been opposed by the traditional owners, the Adnyamathanha people, for cultural reasons.
The Seven Sisters songline, one of the most significant creation tracks throughout Australia, runs nearby this site.
“We remain suspicious and frustrated by this flawed process of consultation, and we remain unwilling to support a nuclear waste dump on our country,” Ms Marsh said.
“Under our cultural law of the land it is our duty of care to care for the land, yet we feel we are being forced into accepting this poison.
“We ask all Australians to stand with us and end this flawed process of consultation. No more one-sided discussions, no more half-truths about the danger, no more secret deals behind closed doors.”
Speaking on behalf of the Annggumathanha Camp Law Mob, Ms Marsh said the federal government’s decision to exclude the Barngarla Traditional Owners from the Kimba community vote was another blow to First Nations people.
The proposal had been opposed by the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation, who battled with the federal government in a series of court proceedings.
“We give our heartfelt support to the Barngala Custodians of the Kimba region, we admire their courage and and hope they succeed in their quest to have their voices heard,” Ms Marsh said.
“The independent ballot conducted by Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation once more highlights the flawed process used by federal government.”
1 This month
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 